Appeal No. 2003-0785
Application 09/457,816
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal these claims will all stand or fall together as a single
group [brief, page 5]. Consistent with this indication
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to any of
these claims. Accordingly, all these claims will stand or fall
together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136,
137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ
1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, we will consider the rejection
against independent claim 2 as representative of all the claims
on appeal.
The examiner finds that Boutaghou teaches a disc drive in
which a flexible circuit has a substrate made of polyamide or
“other preferably suitable material.” The examiner asserts that
the artisan would be aware of other preferably suitable
materials, and the examiner cites Lambert as teaching “Vectran,”
a liquid crystal polymer (LCP) that appellants disclose as being
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007